JUDGMENT :- RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 252 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1859 of 2006 including the order dated 21.02.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s. 147, 148, 149, 454, 380, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. A complaint was instituted by the opposite party No. 2 herein in which it was alleged that the father of the complainant, namely, Mahavir Prasad Jain had acquired plot Nos. 455 and 446 appertaining to Khata No. 298 of village Ramgarh Cantt., P.S. Ramgarh, District Hazaribagh by virtue of a registered deed of sale executed by one Dina Nath Sarawagi on payment of a valuable consideration amount in the year 1993. It has been stated therein that the building over the land purchased was being used as a godown for storage of iron steel, cement, A.C. Sheets, water tanks (Syntax) and other building materials. It has been alleged that on 14.4.2006, the accused persons armed with deadly weapons trespassed into the godown and started damaging the materials and demolished the same causing loss to the complainant and his father to the tune of Rs. 5 Lakhs and more. It was further alleged therein that on protest the accused persons had threatened the complainant with dire consequences. A written report was submitted before the Ramgarh P.S. and a case was registered for the offences u/s. 147, 148, 149, 447, 404 and 379 I.P.C. against the accused persons. It was further alleged that on the next day i.e. on 15.4.2006 at about 9 a.m., the same set of accused persons assembled on the land of the complainant and forcibly removed the materials, namely, iron steel, cements, A.C. Sheets, etc. worth Rs. 45 Lakhs and carried the same in tractors and 407 trucks in presence of the local administration and the police officials. 4. The complaint was sent to the police under the provisions of 156(3) Cr. worth Rs. 45 Lakhs and carried the same in tractors and 407 trucks in presence of the local administration and the police officials. 4. The complaint was sent to the police under the provisions of 156(3) Cr. P.C. for instituting a case, pursuant to which Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 252 of 2006 was registered and the investigation was taken up by the police. Investigation culminated in filing of the final form in favour of the accused persons and vide order dated 21.2.2009, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh after hearing the informant was pleased to take cognizance for the offences punishable u/s. 147, 148, 149, 454, 380, 427 and 504 IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case is nothing but a vexatious litigation on the part of the complainant/informant inasmuch as earlier also with respect to the occurrence dated 14.4.2006, an F.I.R. was instituted against the petitioners. He has also submitted that in the present case finding the case to be a purely a case of civil nature, the police has submitted final form. He has also stressed on the fact that the entire case basically revolves around the inter se dispute between the complainant and petitioner. He has further submitted that the building belonging to the father of the opposite party No. 2 was sought to be demolished and which was challenged in W.P. (C) No. 2275 of 2006 wherein this Court had refused to interfere as there was a series of dispute in between the parties as to whether the property in question is a trust property or not. Mr. Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied upon Section 43(B) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 which lays down that it is the Tribunal which is the appropriate authority to decide the dispute as to whether any immovable property is a property of a particular trust or not. He thus submits that the criminal proceeding is merely a fall out of the dispute with respect to the property in question and in view of the back drop of such facts, the entire criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 6. Mr. He thus submits that the criminal proceeding is merely a fall out of the dispute with respect to the property in question and in view of the back drop of such facts, the entire criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 6. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has vehemently opposed this application by submitting that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while taking cognizance has not committed any error or illegality in law and his application of judicial mind would be apparent from the fact that he has considered every aspect of the matter including the perusal of the case diary before taking cognizance. He has further submitted that the incident of 14.4.2006 and 15.4.2006 are not the same incident, but both are reasonably connected and it further goes to prove that the accused persons are bent upon harassing the complainant. He has further submitted that although a colour of civil liability has been sought to be projected by the petitioners by referring to the fact that there is a dispute between both the parties as to whether the property in question is a trust property or not, but the fact remains that there is apparently a criminal intent on the part of the accused persons and merely because there may be a civil liability the same would not be a bar in prosecuting the accused persons in a criminal case. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that initially a complaint case was instituted by the opposite party No. 2 herein in which reference was made to the occurrence dated 14.4.2006 in which allegations were that the accused persons had come in an organized manner and trespassed in the godown of the complainant and inspite of protest made by the complainant and his father, they had demolished the walls and caused a loss of Rs. 5 Lakhs and more. This incident is followed up on 15.4.2006 when the same accused persons in the same fashion came to the land of the petitioner and removed several materials which were valued at more than Rs. 45 Lakhs. 5 Lakhs and more. This incident is followed up on 15.4.2006 when the same accused persons in the same fashion came to the land of the petitioner and removed several materials which were valued at more than Rs. 45 Lakhs. Therefore although there is a reasonable nexus in between the incidents which were alleged to have taken place on separate dates, the same cannot be said to have arisen out of the same transaction or in repetition of each other. Therefore, so far as the incident dated 15.4.2006 is concerned for which an F.I.R. was instituted by the complainant/informant, the same being bereft of ‘sameness’ cannot be held to be invalid or incompetent. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to highlight on the civil flavour by bringing to the notice of the Court, the order passed by this Court in its writ jurisdiction with respect to the question as to whether the property in question is a trust property or not. It is not in dispute that the parties to this proceeding are on litigating terms from before with respect to the said property in question and the petitioners are trying to take advantage of the fact that there is a civil dispute with respect to the said property. Therefore what would emerge from the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a criminal offence is being sought to be projected under the cloak of a civil wrong. 9. No doubt it is trite law that a given set of fact might make out a civil wrong as also a criminal wrong and only because civil remedy may also be available to the informant/ complaint that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint petition which was subsequently converted into an F.I.R., make out a case and the written report/ complaint apparently reveals a criminal element present in the acts/ actions on the part of the petitioners and therefore it cannot be said that only civil liability is made out against the petitioners. 10. Inherent powers u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. (Code of Criminal Procedure) has to be exercised sparingly and with a great deal of circumspection. 10. Inherent powers u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. (Code of Criminal Procedure) has to be exercised sparingly and with a great deal of circumspection. Meticulous sifting of the evidence as well as the documents in support of the contention of the accused persons when their impeccability or unimpeachability is in doubt is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court while invoking its inherent powers u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. However, if any abuse of the process of court or any miscarriage of justice is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court is not precluded from exercising its powers to prevent such miscarriage of justice. 11. The scenario of the case in hand and as has been discussed above do point to the fact that there is presence of criminal element in the acts/ actions on the part of the petitioners and even if there appears to be a civil wrong, the same is not of such a nature so as to unfasten the criminal liability imposed upon them. 12. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I do not find any reason to warrant interference in the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.